Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Second Amendment Case to Supreme Court?

  1. #1
    Member jmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    At the end of the cul-de-sac
    Posts
    964

    Default Second Amendment Case to Supreme Court?

    Although I am not a big NRA fan myself, I know many of you here are, so I thought I would pass along this article I read this morning about a possible 2nd Amendment case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

    http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...cond_amendment


    Note: Moderators, if this forum is not appropriate for this article, I apologize. Please move it. To shooting forum maybe?

  2. #2

    Default Just curious

    I was wondering, if you are not a big NRA fan are you at least a member?? If not, are you a member of some pro gun lobbying organization? Without groups like these you would have kissed your gun owning rights good bye years ago just like England and Australia.
    Bruce

  3. #3
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    10-4 there... I have yet to hear a gun owner who is not an NRA member give a valid reason why.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    372

    Default NRA

    Valid or not, I canceled my membership to the NRA when they became a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) recognized by the United Nations. This was around the 1999-2000 time frame. A NRA representative explained to me why they thought it was important to be a NGO. But still, it's against my better judgment to belong to a group that has anything to do with the UN.

    Nevertheless, there are many other great organizations protecting the 2nd amendment and the rest of the constitution in general like the GOA and the JBS.

    I told the NRA many times that I'll join again if they drop their NGO status.

  5. #5
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Question Another argument that makes no sense

    Let's see, the NRA is not a government, so that makes them non-governmental and they are an organization, so that part fits. Without being registered as an NGO they have no voice to oppose or even speak to the UN. So, by playing by the rules and registering as an official entity, they have a voice and can (and do) speak before the UN to oppose international gun issues that affect us all. Why would any gun owner have a problem with this?
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  6. #6
    Member northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coaldust View Post
    Valid or not, I canceled my membership to the NRA when they became a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) recognized by the United Nations. This was around the 1999-2000 time frame. A NRA representative explained to me why they thought it was important to be a NGO. But still, it's against my better judgment to belong to a group that has anything to do with the UN.

    Nevertheless, there are many other great organizations protecting the 2nd amendment and the rest of the constitution in general like the GOA and the JBS.

    I told the NRA many times that I'll join again if they drop their NGO status.
    I agree with not supporting an NGO status for the NRA at the UN. To "sit at their table" gives them a degree of validity that they should not have.

    I say get the UN out of the US, and the US out of the UN!

    Kick their commie butts back from whence they came.

    Mike
    NRA Life Member

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,084

    Default My view of the NRA

    Here's a quote from the link above. And I'll go one farther, I believe the NRA doesn't want a definitive Supreme Court ruling either against them or for them. Either way the NRA's usefulness is gone and they loose their ability to collect money. They are a money making machine and that's what they really care about. The day there is a decision by the Supreme Court that gun ownership is an individual right is the day the NRA ceases to exist. The NRA is happy with the status quo. As long as there is the threat that gun owners will lose their rights, the NRA has power and money. Personally, I want a definitive ruling and be done with it.

    "Though the NRA champions individual ownership under the Second Amendment, its critics say the association shares one concern with gun-control advocates: Both fear that a definitive Supreme Court statement against them on the Second Amend*ment would cripple, if not kill, their causes."

  8. #8
    Member northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    Here's a quote from the link above. And I'll go one farther, I believe the NRA doesn't want a definitive Supreme Court ruling either against them or for them. Either way the NRA's usefulness is gone and they loose their ability to collect money. They are a money making machine and that's what they really care about. The day there is a decision by the Supreme Court that gun ownership is an individual right is the day the NRA ceases to exist. The NRA is happy with the status quo. As long as there is the threat that gun owners will lose their rights, the NRA has power and money. Personally, I want a definitive ruling and be done with it.

    "Though the NRA champions individual ownership under the Second Amendment, its critics say the association shares one concern with gun-control advocates: Both fear that a definitive Supreme Court statement against them on the Second Amend*ment would cripple, if not kill, their causes."
    I don't think a Supreme Court ruling would have that big of an impact either way. It would more demonstrate the corruptness versus integrity level of the Court. Those that believe the right to keep and bear arms is God given and inailenable as affirmed by the Second Amendment will continue to do so. Those that don't won't.

  9. #9
    Member northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    122

    Default

    in·al·ien·a·ble
    –adjective not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.


    Sorry for the misspelled typo in my above post!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •